During the 2009 expenses scandal, Corbyn was revealed to have claimed the lowest amount of expenses of any Member of Parliament.[19][20] In 2010 he claimed the smallest amount of all 650 MPs. In an interview with The Islington Gazette he said: "I am a parsimonious MP. I think we should claim what we need to run our offices and pay our staff but be careful because it's obviously public money. In a year, rent for the [constituency] office [on] Durham Road, Finsbury Park is about £12,000 to £14,000."[20] He rents his constituency office from the Ethical Property Company
He certainly has good qualities.
Though maybe its my cynicism, but I would be worried at something literally called the 'Ethical Property Company' - like going to a contractor called 'Honest somebody'.
I wonder what the sweatshop which made the Corbyn Tshirts was called.
New members of Corbyn’s new team are giving his leadership a lukewarm response. Shadow education secretary Lucy Powell, who had never met the new leader in person until this evening, told Radio 4’s PM programme accepting the role had been a “difficult” decision.
The former election campaign vice chairwoman said one of the critical problems Labour faced at the polls was economic credibility. Asked if she believed Corbyn and John McDonnell could convince voters where the previous leader failed, she said: “Not on everything, no, not at all, and some things they have said I don’t agree with.
They're not even trying to demonstrate any sense of unity. Surely this is going to fall apart very quickly - Corbyn isn't going to be able to get anything vaguely controversial through the Shadow Cabinet and if so what's the point in being leader?
Forget 16,000 conversations, I suspect the first 200 conversations JC and Rosie Winterton had were "bugger off..." "I'll put you down as a maybe then...."
Seriously, how far down the bums-on-seats list do you have to go to offer the job to Lucy Powell, someone you've ever even met.
I did chuckle when I saw she'd got the education gig, but I see she read chemistry at Oxford so she must be fairly intelligent. The more I look at it the more I think it will all fall apart fairly quickly, but I'm not sure there will be the appetite to trigger a leadership challenge for the foreseeable future.
Astonishing events in Australia today with the toppling of Abbott and his replacement by the more Cameron like Malcolm Turnbull. I had expected it to happen at some point before the next election but not quite yet, also sweet revenge for Turnbull after he was himself toppled by Abbott in 2009 over his support for a Climate Change Bill.
It means too that both the Liberal and Labour Parties have toppled 5 leaders in the past 7 years, including 3 PMs. I suggest Labour MPs go on a sabbatical to Canberra to learn how to run an effective coup!!
"Unable to find a shadow defence secretary, Mr Corbyn and his inner-circle were phoning around MPs to check there views on the Trident nuclear deterrent, on the off chance they would be willing to serve."
"...Shadow defence secretary was proving the most difficult role to fill, as Ms Winterton struggled to find an MP willing to back scrapping Trident and criticising Nato.
But 9.15pm, it remained the glaring absence on the board detailing the shadow cabinet.
A Sky News journalist outside the office heard Ms Winterton effectively begging MPs to serve during phone conversations.
"Now, this might be a bit of an outside idea, how do you feel about being shadow defence secretary?" Ms Winterton said.
Also went to a very interesting discussion this evening at the NT with Joan Bakewell and 2 of David Frost's sons on his life, some fantastic anecdotes and interview clips
Occurs to me that, for all the sound and fury, Corbyn might actually change nothing. He won't be the catastrophe the Tories hope, but he won't be the Saviour his disciples seek.
He will convert the young, but they don't vote, so no change. He will enrage the old, but they vote Tory already, so no change.
He will win a few seats in Scotland, probably, but he will lose a few in the South and the Midlands. Nothing changes. He will lose some voters to UKIP with his immigration stuff, but he will win some back with the spendy stuff. No change.
It's quite easy to see Labour under Corbyn doing almost exactly the same as Miliband.
Dull. But ironic.
I think you're bang on Sean - looking at the target seats lists for Tories and Labour, I can see 15 switching Blue, and possibly 5 switching red. Tory safe seats will see majorities increase. Ditto Labour seats.
And the Labour party will be even more depressed in May 2020, when they've ranted and raved, hoped and dreamed for 5 years.
Seriously, how far down the bums-on-seats list do you have to go to offer the job to Lucy Powell, someone you've ever even met.
I did chuckle when I saw she'd got the education gig, but I see she read chemistry at Oxford so she must be fairly intelligent. The more I look at it the more I think it will all fall apart fairly quickly, but I'm not sure there will be the appetite to trigger a leadership challenge for the foreseeable future.
I think in the modern university world, especially in the more technical subjects, you can get pretty far simply with hard work and an ability to learn and memorise. Intelligence comes in different forms
OK, a fiver on 'Thatcher' at 12/1. The guy is fixated with the great lady, and I'm thinking he might come up with 'the biggest attack on workers since Mrs Thatcher' or some such tosh.
s I do. Thatcher was the most divisive politician of the twentieth century by all measures. I can't really be bothered to give you a history lesson on it. Have a look at YouTube on the poll tax riots to remind yourself. That's not a comment on whether she was right or wrong. She was just incredible divisive and even now if you speak her name people a significant number of people will well up in a near-allergic reaction. Go to some parts of the country and try and deny this at your peril.
Those people are idiots. I don't like labelling whole groups of people, I strive to be reasonable in all things, but that is seriously idiotic behaviour.
I truly want people, left and right, to stop trying to get me to worship or demonise Thatcher. I know there are young people who, for some reason, get really emotional about a PM who was ousted when they were children or not even born, but I don't understand it. Hate her politics sure, particularly if raised to do it, but I just cannot get worked up about her. Things have moved on, the legacy is important but not to the point people should still be getting so bloody upset and talking of assassination and the like, it's insanity.
I was not raised to hate any political party or figure, and it is much more relaxing (and as I've never voted Tory, cannot be 'defending' Thatcher out of loyalty)
That is what I find supremely off-putting about the left-wing people. They have actively taught their young people to hate - whether a single figure from the past, or anyone whom they can label as 'Tory'.
Teaching young people to hate anyone or anything just turns me up. I don't know how anyone with any principles at all can find common cause with people who do that.
I think there are exceptions to that rule that everyone most people could agree to
(edited to add, this is my comment:) There may well be, but do you see democratic political-party engagement in a democratic country as one of the exceptions?
Are you being a tad touchy? I was thinking of 20th century dictators and their ilk. The way you expressed it included brussell sprouts.
I'm going to propose a Jezza game changer. He stands at GE 2020 solely on a ticket of reform of the system. PR, House of Lords, party funding reform, lobbyists, PR for local government etc. The full nine yards. And nothing else. If he wins he will enact the changes and then call another election.
"Unable to find a shadow defence secretary, Mr Corbyn and his inner-circle were phoning around MPs to check there views on the Trident nuclear deterrent, on the off chance they would be willing to serve."
"...Shadow defence secretary was proving the most difficult role to fill, as Ms Winterton struggled to find an MP willing to back scrapping Trident and criticising Nato.
But 9.15pm, it remained the glaring absence on the board detailing the shadow cabinet.
A Sky News journalist outside the office heard Ms Winterton effectively begging MPs to serve during phone conversations.
"Now, this might be a bit of an outside idea, how do you feel about being shadow defence secretary?" Ms Winterton said.
Astonishing events in Australia today with the toppling of Abbott and his replacement by the more Cameron like Malcolm Turnbull. I had expected it to happen at some point before the next election but not quite yet, also sweet revenge for Turnbull after he was himself toppled by Abbott in 2009 over his support for a Climate Change Bill.
It means too that both the Liberal and Labour Parties have toppled 5 leaders in the past 7 years, including 3 PMs. I suggest Labour MPs go on a sabbatical to Canberra to learn how to run an effective coup!!
It seems counterproductive - the electorate can never be sure who will stick around to implement something (if nothing would change with a change in leader, then why bother), and it doesn't finish off rivals in any case, as we saw with the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd nonsense. Toppling leaders may be necessary sometimes, but Australia seem to take it too far, the instant things get tough the whispers will start.
Occurs to me that, for all the sound and fury, Corbyn might actually change nothing. He won't be the catastrophe the Tories hope, but he won't be the Saviour his disciples seek.
He will convert the young, but they don't vote, so no change. He will enrage the old, but they vote Tory already, so no change.
He will win a few seats in Scotland, probably, but he will lose a few in the South and the Midlands. Nothing changes. He will lose some voters to UKIP with his immigration stuff, but he will win some back with the spendy stuff. No change.
It's quite easy to see Labour under Corbyn doing almost exactly the same as Miliband.
Dull. But ironic.
That's on the revenue side. On the cost side, as we have seen here so eloquently with @SouthamObserver and others, he will lose good, sensible left of centre Lab supporters. And with it, good, sensible opposition.
Occurs to me that, for all the sound and fury, Corbyn might actually change nothing. He won't be the catastrophe the Tories hope, but he won't be the Saviour his disciples seek.
He will convert the young, but they don't vote, so no change. He will enrage the old, but they vote Tory already, so no change.
He will win a few seats in Scotland, probably, but he will lose a few in the South and the Midlands. Nothing changes. He will lose some voters to UKIP with his immigration stuff, but he will win some back with the spendy stuff. No change.
It's quite easy to see Labour under Corbyn doing almost exactly the same as Miliband.
Dull. But ironic.
I think you're bang on Sean - looking at the target seats lists for Tories and Labour, I can see 15 switching Blue, and possibly 5 switching red. Tory safe seats will see majorities increase. Ditto Labour seats.
And the Labour party will be even more depressed in May 2020, when they've ranted and raved, hoped and dreamed for 5 years.
The most likely Labour gains from Tories are probably Croydon Central, Brighton Kemptown, Bury North, Morley&Outwood, Derby North.
Astonishing events in Australia today with the toppling of Abbott and his replacement by the more Cameron like Malcolm Turnbull. I had expected it to happen at some point before the next election but not quite yet, also sweet revenge for Turnbull after he was himself toppled by Abbott in 2009 over his support for a Climate Change Bill.
It means too that both the Liberal and Labour Parties have toppled 5 leaders in the past 7 years, including 3 PMs. I suggest Labour MPs go on a sabbatical to Canberra to learn how to run an effective coup!!
It seems counterproductive - the electorate can never be sure who will stick around to implement something (if nothing would change with a change in leader, then why bother), and it doesn't finish off rivals in any case, as we saw with the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd nonsense. Toppling leaders may be necessary sometimes, but Australia seem to take it too far, the instant things get tough the whispers will start.
Seriously, how far down the bums-on-seats list do you have to go to offer the job to Lucy Powell, someone you've ever even met.
I did chuckle when I saw she'd got the education gig, but I see she read chemistry at Oxford so she must be fairly intelligent. The more I look at it the more I think it will all fall apart fairly quickly, but I'm not sure there will be the appetite to trigger a leadership challenge for the foreseeable future.
I think in the modern university world, especially in the more technical subjects, you can get pretty far simply with hard work and an ability to learn and memorise. Intelligence comes in different forms
Unfortunately I fear that you've just described my educational success! That said, I'm fairly confident I'd have vetoed the Ed Stone!
Astonishing events in Australia today with the toppling of Abbott and his replacement by the more Cameron like Malcolm Turnbull. I had expected it to happen at some point before the next election but not quite yet, also sweet revenge for Turnbull after he was himself toppled by Abbott in 2009 over his support for a Climate Change Bill.
It means too that both the Liberal and Labour Parties have toppled 5 leaders in the past 7 years, including 3 PMs. I suggest Labour MPs go on a sabbatical to Canberra to learn how to run an effective coup!!
Perhaps the discussion should switch to considering the relative merits of leaving it to the parliamentary parties to vote for their leader or giving the membership the vote. The tory party have a bit of both.
New members of Corbyn’s new team are giving his leadership a lukewarm response. Shadow education secretary Lucy Powell, who had never met the new leader in person until this evening, told Radio 4’s PM programme accepting the role had been a “difficult” decision.
The former election campaign vice chairwoman said one of the critical problems Labour faced at the polls was economic credibility. Asked if she believed Corbyn and John McDonnell could convince voters where the previous leader failed, she said: “Not on everything, no, not at all, and some things they have said I don’t agree with.
They're not even trying to demonstrate any sense of unity. Surely this is going to fall apart very quickly - Corbyn isn't going to be able to get anything vaguely controversial through the Shadow Cabinet and if so what's the point in being leader?
Benn said something similar. I'm not surprised that the non-Corbinites think these things and must have told JC so and that they would not conceal it if asked, but why would JC still appoint them? Was he that near the bottom of the barrel that he had to do so to create any pretence of inclusiveness?
New members of Corbyn’s new team are giving his leadership a lukewarm response. Shadow education secretary Lucy Powell, who had never met the new leader in person until this evening, told Radio 4’s PM programme accepting the role had been a “difficult” decision.
The former election campaign vice chairwoman said one of the critical problems Labour faced at the polls was economic credibility. Asked if she believed Corbyn and John McDonnell could convince voters where the previous leader failed, she said: “Not on everything, no, not at all, and some things they have said I don’t agree with.
They're not even trying to demonstrate any sense of unity. Surely this is going to fall apart very quickly - Corbyn isn't going to be able to get anything vaguely controversial through the Shadow Cabinet and if so what's the point in being leader?
Benn said something similar. I'm not surprised that the non-Corbinites think these things and must have told JC so and that they would not conceal it if asked, but why would JC still appoint them? Was he that near the bottom of the barrel that he had to do so to create any pretence of inclusiveness?
Seriously, how far down the bums-on-seats list do you have to go to offer the job to Lucy Powell, someone you've ever even met.
I did chuckle when I saw she'd got the education gig, but I see she read chemistry at Oxford so she must be fairly intelligent. The more I look at it the more I think it will all fall apart fairly quickly, but I'm not sure there will be the appetite to trigger a leadership challenge for the foreseeable future.
But he had never actually met her, never spoken to her - did he know what she looked like? Did he know anything at all about her? 'Education Education ... er who are you?' Of course the Corbyn slogan is, 'Re-education. Re-education Re-education.'
Astonishing events in Australia today with the toppling of Abbott and his replacement by the more Cameron like Malcolm Turnbull. I had expected it to happen at some point before the next election but not quite yet, also sweet revenge for Turnbull after he was himself toppled by Abbott in 2009 over his support for a Climate Change Bill.
It means too that both the Liberal and Labour Parties have toppled 5 leaders in the past 7 years, including 3 PMs. I suggest Labour MPs go on a sabbatical to Canberra to learn how to run an effective coup!!
Perhaps the discussion should switch to considering the relative merits of leaving it to the parliamentary parties to vote for their leader or giving the membership the vote. The tory party have a bit of both.
Indeed, while Labour MPs nominate candidates they should also be able to have a vote of no confidence too
Occurs to me that, for all the sound and fury, Corbyn might actually change nothing. He won't be the catastrophe the Tories hope, but he won't be the Saviour his disciples seek.
He will convert the young, but they don't vote, so no change. He will enrage the old, but they vote Tory already, so no change.
He will win a few seats in Scotland, probably, but he will lose a few in the South and the Midlands. Nothing changes. He will lose some voters to UKIP with his immigration stuff, but he will win some back with the spendy stuff. No change.
It's quite easy to see Labour under Corbyn doing almost exactly the same as Miliband.
Dull. But ironic.
It will be interesting to see if Corbyn actually does moderate his views when confronted with the reality of the need to make political compromise. It's something he's simply never had to consider before, and is simply a fact of democratic political leadership. The most acceptable/least worst option is never something you have to think about when being a 'man of principle' on the rebellious backbenches.
Occurs to me that, for all the sound and fury, Corbyn might actually change nothing. He won't be the catastrophe the Tories hope, but he won't be the Saviour his disciples seek.
He will convert the young, but they don't vote, so no change. He will enrage the old, but they vote Tory already, so no change.
He will win a few seats in Scotland, probably, but he will lose a few in the South and the Midlands. Nothing changes. He will lose some voters to UKIP with his immigration stuff, but he will win some back with the spendy stuff. No change.
It's quite easy to see Labour under Corbyn doing almost exactly the same as Miliband.
Astonishing events in Australia today with the toppling of Abbott and his replacement by the more Cameron like Malcolm Turnbull. I had expected it to happen at some point before the next election but not quite yet, also sweet revenge for Turnbull after he was himself toppled by Abbott in 2009 over his support for a Climate Change Bill.
It means too that both the Liberal and Labour Parties have toppled 5 leaders in the past 7 years, including 3 PMs. I suggest Labour MPs go on a sabbatical to Canberra to learn how to run an effective coup!!
It seems counterproductive - the electorate can never be sure who will stick around to implement something (if nothing would change with a change in leader, then why bother), and it doesn't finish off rivals in any case, as we saw with the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd nonsense. Toppling leaders may be necessary sometimes, but Australia seem to take it too far, the instant things get tough the whispers will start.
The short period between elections, only 3 years, also means leaders only have a small time to perform. However, even if the Aussies take it too far, UK parties and especially Labour need to know when to use a knife more effectively, if a leader is clearly failing to make an impact after 2/3 years it may be time to let them go.
Watching the footage of the the new border controls going up in Germany, this really strengthens Cameron's renegotiation position. If Germany can back out of EU immigration treaties it has signed up to, then surely they must accept we should be entitled to do the same?
New members of Corbyn’s new team are giving his leadership a lukewarm response. Shadow education secretary Lucy Powell, who had never met the new leader in person until this evening, told Radio 4’s PM programme accepting the role had been a “difficult” decision.
The former election campaign vice chairwoman said one of the critical problems Labour faced at the polls was economic credibility. Asked if she believed Corbyn and John McDonnell could convince voters where the previous leader failed, she said: “Not on everything, no, not at all, and some things they have said I don’t agree with.
They're not even trying to demonstrate any sense of unity. Surely this is going to fall apart very quickly - Corbyn isn't going to be able to get anything vaguely controversial through the Shadow Cabinet and if so what's the point in being leader?
Benn said something similar. I'm not surprised that the non-Corbinites think these things and must have told JC so and that they would not conceal it if asked, but why would JC still appoint them? Was he that near the bottom of the barrel that he had to do so to create any pretence of inclusiveness?
I think the equivocation here might be the distinction between "not campaigning for out" and "campaigning for in". The distinction being the potential for not having an official party line. The irony is that Corbyn is right on this - it would be politically stupid to give Cameron a free rein on negotiation, allowing him to negotiate away things that the left consider important.
Astonishing events in Australia today with the toppling of Abbott and his replacement by the more Cameron like Malcolm Turnbull. I had expected it to happen at some point before the next election but not quite yet, also sweet revenge for Turnbull after he was himself toppled by Abbott in 2009 over his support for a Climate Change Bill.
It means too that both the Liberal and Labour Parties have toppled 5 leaders in the past 7 years, including 3 PMs. I suggest Labour MPs go on a sabbatical to Canberra to learn how to run an effective coup!!
It seems counterproductive - the electorate can never be sure who will stick around to implement something (if nothing would change with a change in leader, then why bother), and it doesn't finish off rivals in any case, as we saw with the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd nonsense. Toppling leaders may be necessary sometimes, but Australia seem to take it too far, the instant things get tough the whispers will start.
The short period between elections, only 3 years, also means leaders only have a small time to perform. However, even if the Aussies take it too far, UK parties and especially Labour need to know when to use a knife more effectively, if a leader is clearly failing to make an impact after 2/3 years it may be time to let them go.
This is a relatively modern development in Australia too, with quite a bit of instability - compared to the long time eg Howard was in charge.
In fact from Whitlam to Howard there were only 4 PM's in a span of 32 years which considering the shorter period between elections is quite remarkable.
Seriously, how far down the bums-on-seats list do you have to go to offer the job to Lucy Powell, someone you've ever even met.
I did chuckle when I saw she'd got the education gig, but I see she read chemistry at Oxford so she must be fairly intelligent. The more I look at it the more I think it will all fall apart fairly quickly, but I'm not sure there will be the appetite to trigger a leadership challenge for the foreseeable future.
Occurs to me that, for all the sound and fury, Corbyn might actually change nothing. He won't be the catastrophe the Tories hope, but he won't be the Saviour his disciples seek.
He will convert the young, but they don't vote, so no change. He will enrage the old, but they vote Tory already, so no change.
He will win a few seats in Scotland, probably, but he will lose a few in the South and the Midlands. Nothing changes. He will lose some voters to UKIP with his immigration stuff, but he will win some back with the spendy stuff. No change.
It's quite easy to see Labour under Corbyn doing almost exactly the same as Miliband.
Dull. But ironic.
I think you're bang on Sean - looking at the target seats lists for Tories and Labour, I can see 15 switching Blue, and possibly 5 switching red. Tory safe seats will see majorities increase. Ditto Labour seats.
And the Labour party will be even more depressed in May 2020, when they've ranted and raved, hoped and dreamed for 5 years.
The most likely Labour gains from Tories are probably Croydon Central, Brighton Kemptown, Bury North, Morley&Outwood, Derby North.
Not Morley & Outwood. I think that will stay Tory now.
Once upon a time, the Washington Post was pro-Clinton in a big way. You could not tell that now, particularly when it comes to Chris Cillizza's reporting on the email server issue.
This article is particularly damning, and shows that Hillary's downward polling trend on both lagging and leading indicators continues. Hard to see how she turns this ship around - certainly not by waiting five months to apologize and then assuming that has ruled a line under the matter.
Seriously, how far down the bums-on-seats list do you have to go to offer the job to Lucy Powell, someone you've ever even met.
I did chuckle when I saw she'd got the education gig, but I see she read chemistry at Oxford so she must be fairly intelligent. The more I look at it the more I think it will all fall apart fairly quickly, but I'm not sure there will be the appetite to trigger a leadership challenge for the foreseeable future.
I think in the modern university world, especially in the more technical subjects, you can get pretty far simply with hard work and an ability to learn and memorise. Intelligence comes in different forms
The distinction I would make is between "intelligence" (as measured by an IQ test or a technical exam) and "sound judgment". Similar to the distinction between knowledge and wisdom, or brains and common sense.
Watching the footage of the the new border controls going up in Germany, this really strengthens Cameron's renegotiation position. If Germany can back out of EU immigration treaties it has signed up to, then surely they must accept we should be entitled to do the same?
Schengen states are allowed to reestablish border controls, albeit "temporarily", under unusual conditions. So this isn't breaking any treaties. Of course the question then becomes "what is the definition of temporary?", at which point I refer you to the lawyers...
From the guardian blog: New members of Corbyn’s new team are giving his leadership a lukewarm response. Shadow education secretary Lucy Powell, who had never met the new leader in person until this evening, told Radio 4’s PM programme accepting the role had been a “difficult” decision. The former election campaign vice chairwoman said one of the critical problems Labour faced at the polls was economic credibility. Asked if she believed Corbyn and John McDonnell could convince voters where the previous leader failed, she said: “Not on everything, no, not at all, and some things they have said I don’t agree with. They're not even trying to demonstrate any sense of unity. Surely this is going to fall apart very quickly - Corbyn isn't going to be able to get anything vaguely controversial through the Shadow Cabinet and if so what's the point in being leader?
I can see where you are coming from. But at the risk of repeating myself, are Corbyn and McDonnell bothered about that? I think we need to put the two of them together and along with them the trade union barons and the 'activists advisors strategists' (don't laugh) in the back rooms. Corbyn does not represent what we have thought of as 'The Labour Party' up to now. The Labour Party has been a convenient vehicle for his brand of socialism. He and they want to take it over and convert it. I'm guessing but there can only be about 12 Labour MPs who have any real desire to have Corbyn as leader (and Abbott is one of them!) - the real party he wants to lead is the polyglot mash of protesters that he is happy to harang from in front of banners of Lenin.
Watching the footage of the the new border controls going up in Germany, this really strengthens Cameron's renegotiation position. If Germany can back out of EU immigration treaties it has signed up to, then surely they must accept we should be entitled to do the same?
Schengen states are allowed to reestablish border controls, albeit "temporarily", under unusual conditions. So this isn't breaking any treaties. Of course the question then becomes "what is the definition of temporary?", at which point I refer you to the lawyers...
Seriously, how far down the bums-on-seats list do you have to go to offer the job to Lucy Powell, someone you've ever even met.
I did chuckle when I saw she'd got the education gig, but I see she read chemistry at Oxford so she must be fairly intelligent. The more I look at it the more I think it will all fall apart fairly quickly, but I'm not sure there will be the appetite to trigger a leadership challenge for the foreseeable future.
I think in the modern university world, especially in the more technical subjects, you can get pretty far simply with hard work and an ability to learn and memorise. Intelligence comes in different forms
The distinction I would make is between "intelligence" (as measured by an IQ test or a technical exam) and "sound judgment". Similar to the distinction between knowledge and wisdom, or brains and common sense.
Yes - and accepting the job is not really shouting anything about her judgement is it.
1. Matter of principle, innit. I don't like *anyone* telling me what to do.
2. Of course mothers are wonderful (especially as mine lurks on this site from time to time). But the route to redemption is through Christ and Christ alone. All of the saints are equally worthy of veneration; I don't believe in class-based division. Except for St. Dunstan, of course, because he was just cool (and the patron saint of bankers)*
3. Symbolism vs. reality...
* An example of Dunstan's coolness: the feud with Dunstan began on the day of Eadwig's coronation, when he failed to attend a meeting of nobles. When Dunstan eventually found the young monarch, he was cavorting with a noblewoman named Ælfgifu and her mother, and refused to return with the bishop. Infuriated by this, Dunstan dragged Eadwig back and forced him to renounce the girl as a "strumpet". Later realising that he had provoked the king, Dunstan fled to the apparent sanctuary of his cloister, but Eadwig, incited by Ælfgifu, whom he married, followed him and plundered the monastery
Well, this has got serious all of a sudden!
1. That's rather a problem with God than with the Pope really. I don't like anyone telling me what to do either. Nor did my parents. I especially don't like priests telling me what to do. I think that has much to do with the Italian Catholicism I grew up with. But what Catholicism has given me is a sense of the sacred, that all of us - no matter who or what we are - are equally sacred and touched by divinity and worth beyond any value for that alone and a belief we are moral agents, that we have a choice between good and evil, that what is important is not to be perfect but to try our best and if we don't succeed (as we will most of the time) we get up and try again, that it is the trying that matters not the achievement, that forgiveness and love and charity matter, that having a moral compass, a conscience, that still small voice of calm is what matters most of all and that we will be judged not on our status, our money, our house but on how we did unto others.
2. Redemption comes through Christ. Venerating Mary does not detract from that. We pray to Mary to intercede with Christ not to replace him.
I think even the English in their hearts sort of understand this. After Diana died all those tributes in the park struck me as being exactly like the sort of shrines to Mary you see at the roadside in Southern Italy. To me it felt at times as if England had sort of stumbled upon its inner Catholicism, in a curious way.
3. Can't really say any more.
That patron saint of bankers must have been in agony these last few years.......!
Are you being a tad touchy? I was thinking of 20th century dictators and their ilk. The way you expressed it included brussell sprouts.
Hope I've extracted your reply from the nest properly!
No, sorry if it came across as touchy. It may be a discussion worth having.
Do you mean that teaching young people to hate a dictator is the right thing to do? I'd say that it's better to teach people to hate actions rather than the people who do them.
In fact it goes further back than that; don't teach hate at all, teach principles. If people are taught good principles they will make good decisions about what actions to approve & what to disapprove.
Seriously, how far down the bums-on-seats list do you have to go to offer the job to Lucy Powell, someone you've ever even met.
I did chuckle when I saw she'd got the education gig, but I see she read chemistry at Oxford so she must be fairly intelligent. The more I look at it the more I think it will all fall apart fairly quickly, but I'm not sure there will be the appetite to trigger a leadership challenge for the foreseeable future.
I think in the modern university world, especially in the more technical subjects, you can get pretty far simply with hard work and an ability to learn and memorise. Intelligence comes in different forms
The distinction I would make is between "intelligence" (as measured by an IQ test or a technical exam) and "sound judgment". Similar to the distinction between knowledge and wisdom, or brains and common sense.
Yes - and accepting the job is not really shouting anything about her judgement is it.
I'm not sure that taking a Shadow job is actually so stupid if Shadow ministers are going to be given carte Blanche to mould party policy in their areas. Especially as at the moment there isn't any obvious evidence that there is going to be a strong imposition of collective responsibility. It's a chance to build a public profile, which is a basic threshold for political advancement.
it would be politically stupid to give Cameron a free rein on negotiation, allowing him to negotiate away things that the left consider important.
But this is tosh. The negotiation isn't about 'things that the left consider important', it's about where the policy should be decided. As regards workers' right, all that the Conservatives are saying is that these should be decided by parliament, not some unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. This would mean that a future extreme left-wing government could introduce measures to make employment less attractive to employers, if it so wished.
OK, a fiver on 'Thatcher' at 12/1. The guy is fixated with the great lady, and I'm thinking he might come up with 'the biggest attack on workers since Mrs Thatcher' or some such tosh.
Edit: 'Inequality' is a pretty good guess but 1/2 is a bit mean. Ditto 'Poverty'
Mistake. Mentioning "Thatcher" allows Cameron to ask if the Shadow Chancellor would still want to assassinate her given the chance. Too easy a hit. He will avoid it.
Inequality and poverty much better bets.
Despite the fact half the country or more would love to have done? (As hyperbole.)
Half the Country would love to have 'assassinated' her. Do you think before you spout such rubbish
I do. Thatcher was the most divisive politician of the twentieth century by all measures. I can't really be bothered to give you a history lesson on it. Have a look at YouTube on the poll tax riots to remind yourself. That's not a comment on whether she was right or wrong. She was just incredible divisive and even now if you speak her name people a significant number of people will well up in a near-allergic reaction. Go to some parts of the country and try and deny this at your peril.
Ah, the Poll Tax Riots.
Thousands of Lefties and Soap Dodgers expecting special treatment, and objecting when they were expected to contribute towards the services they used.
The one bloke I knew who took part was gloating about the fun he had.
He lived in a squat and paid no tax at all let alone poll tax.
I asked him about this - him and his anarchist mates just went because they knew it would kick off and be "fun"
Astonishing events in Australia today with the toppling of Abbott and his replacement by the more Cameron like Malcolm Turnbull. I had expected it to happen at some point before the next election but not quite yet, also sweet revenge for Turnbull after he was himself toppled by Abbott in 2009 over his support for a Climate Change Bill.
It means too that both the Liberal and Labour Parties have toppled 5 leaders in the past 7 years, including 3 PMs. I suggest Labour MPs go on a sabbatical to Canberra to learn how to run an effective coup!!
It seems counterproductive - the electorate can never be sure who will stick around to implement something (if nothing would change with a change in leader, then why bother), and it doesn't finish off rivals in any case, as we saw with the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd nonsense. Toppling leaders may be necessary sometimes, but Australia seem to take it too far, the instant things get tough the whispers will start.
The short period between elections, only 3 years, also means leaders only have a small time to perform. However, even if the Aussies take it too far, UK parties and especially Labour need to know when to use a knife more effectively, if a leader is clearly failing to make an impact after 2/3 years it may be time to let them go.
This is a relatively modern development in Australia too, with quite a bit of instability - compared to the long time eg Howard was in charge.
In fact from Whitlam to Howard there were only 4 PM's in a span of 32 years which considering the shorter period between elections is quite remarkable.
There were some prominent assassinations of previous party leaders though, eg Hawke became Labour leader just months before the 1980 election and Keating's ousting of Hawke. Howard was himself involved in several leadership battles before he finally became PM
Wasn't Rosie Winterton "just good friends" with Prezza? or am I confusing her with another MP
Er... didn't Prezza's staff give him a present of a Goblin Teasmade when he left office? (Just to avoid confusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teasmade )
But the route to redemption is through Christ and Christ alone.
I thought Jesus made it very clear in 25:35 how redemption would be earned:
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me."
I am wading well outside my competence here, but my understanding is that in Christianity redemption is not earned thru good works. The checklist is:
1) Acknowledgement that Christ is divine and your saviour 2) Acknowledgement that you are a sinner 3) Acknowledgement that you have sinned 4) Sincere repentance of your sins 5) Actions consistent with the above (e.g. sincere attempts to make amends for past sins, sincere attempts to sin no more, avoidance of temptation, acknowledgement of the will of God, adoption of a lifestyle consistent with Godly precepts, etc)
It doesn't go "oh I have led a good life and by that alone I will be saved", or "oh I believe in God and by that alone I will be saved". It's more difficult than that.
(For other religions, please see the relevant writings)
Occurs to me that, for all the sound and fury, Corbyn might actually change nothing. He won't be the catastrophe the Tories hope, but he won't be the Saviour his disciples seek.
He will convert the young, but they don't vote, so no change. He will enrage the old, but they vote Tory already, so no change.
He will win a few seats in Scotland, probably, but he will lose a few in the South and the Midlands. Nothing changes. He will lose some voters to UKIP with his immigration stuff, but he will win some back with the spendy stuff. No change.
It's quite easy to see Labour under Corbyn doing almost exactly the same as Miliband.
Dull. But ironic.
I think you're bang on Sean - looking at the target seats lists for Tories and Labour, I can see 15 switching Blue, and possibly 5 switching red. Tory safe seats will see majorities increase. Ditto Labour seats.
And the Labour party will be even more depressed in May 2020, when they've ranted and raved, hoped and dreamed for 5 years.
The most likely Labour gains from Tories are probably Croydon Central, Brighton Kemptown, Bury North, Morley&Outwood, Derby North.
Gower was only lost because of Green and TUSC candidates being on the ballot paper.
Occurs to me that, for all the sound and fury, Corbyn might actually change nothing. He won't be the catastrophe the Tories hope, but he won't be the Saviour his disciples seek.
He will convert the young, but they don't vote, so no change. He will enrage the old, but they vote Tory already, so no change.
He will win a few seats in Scotland, probably, but he will lose a few in the South and the Midlands. Nothing changes. He will lose some voters to UKIP with his immigration stuff, but he will win some back with the spendy stuff. No change.
It's quite easy to see Labour under Corbyn doing almost exactly the same as Miliband.
Dull. But ironic.
I think you're bang on Sean - looking at the target seats lists for Tories and Labour, I can see 15 switching Blue, and possibly 5 switching red. Tory safe seats will see majorities increase. Ditto Labour seats.
And the Labour party will be even more depressed in May 2020, when they've ranted and raved, hoped and dreamed for 5 years.
The most likely Labour gains from Tories are probably Croydon Central, Brighton Kemptown, Bury North, Morley&Outwood, Derby North.
Gower was only lost because of Green and TUSC candidates being on the ballot paper.
Compare the imagery. Corbyn, on his first day as Labour leader, walking stolidly along the street ignoring questions from a TV reporter. Cameron, in his sixth year as prime minister, on the ground in Lebanon and Jordan arguing the case for more spending on the refugees in the region.
In statesmanship terms, Cameron is showing Merkel and the EU how it should be done. It hasn't always been so but it is now, in spades.
Cameron grows in stature day by day.
He's proving a far more comfortable Conservative PM than he was a coalition PM.
He doesn't now have to spend a portion of his day trying to cheer up Nick Clegg.
Occurs to me that, for all the sound and fury, Corbyn might actually change nothing. He won't be the catastrophe the Tories hope, but he won't be the Saviour his disciples seek.
He will convert the young, but they don't vote, so no change. He will enrage the old, but they vote Tory already, so no change.
He will win a few seats in Scotland, probably, but he will lose a few in the South and the Midlands. Nothing changes. He will lose some voters to UKIP with his immigration stuff, but he will win some back with the spendy stuff. No change.
It's quite easy to see Labour under Corbyn doing almost exactly the same as Miliband.
Dull. But ironic.
I think you're bang on Sean - looking at the target seats lists for Tories and Labour, I can see 15 switching Blue, and possibly 5 switching red. Tory safe seats will see majorities increase. Ditto Labour seats.
And the Labour party will be even more depressed in May 2020, when they've ranted and raved, hoped and dreamed for 5 years.
The most likely Labour gains from Tories are probably Croydon Central, Brighton Kemptown, Bury North, Morley&Outwood, Derby North.
Not Morley & Outwood. I think that will stay Tory now.
As a cross border seat Morley and Outwood is highly unlikely to remain in its current form after the boundary changes. Leeds loses a whole seat and as it has very large ward sizes it means major changes to all the seats. In the abandoned review I believe the plan was to pair Morley with Tong in Bradford which would probably flip it back to Lab but still leave it very marginal
Comments
Too many London MPs
Too many big city MPs
Too many Scousers
Too many MPs from safe seats **
Not a group likely to do well where Labour needs to gain votes.
And Hilary Benn adds the icing on the 1970s retro cake.
** Has anyone calculated the average majority of the shadow cabinet ? I'd guess its more than 10,000.
The more you talk about it, the less you have.
It means too that both the Liberal and Labour Parties have toppled 5 leaders in the past 7 years, including 3 PMs. I suggest Labour MPs go on a sabbatical to Canberra to learn how to run an effective coup!!
"...Shadow defence secretary was proving the most difficult role to fill, as Ms Winterton struggled to find an MP willing to back scrapping Trident and criticising Nato.
But 9.15pm, it remained the glaring absence on the board detailing the shadow cabinet.
A Sky News journalist outside the office heard Ms Winterton effectively begging MPs to serve during phone conversations.
"Now, this might be a bit of an outside idea, how do you feel about being shadow defence secretary?" Ms Winterton said.
In another conversation, she reportedly asked: "Just, what are your views on Trident?”. There was then a long pause and then another question: “But, are you willing to engage in a debate?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11863755/Chaos-behind-Jeremy-Corbyns-reshuffle-revealed.html
And the Labour party will be even more depressed in May 2020, when they've ranted and raved, hoped and dreamed for 5 years.
And that is far from a good thing.
Of course the Corbyn slogan is, 'Re-education. Re-education Re-education.'
In fact from Whitlam to Howard there were only 4 PM's in a span of 32 years which considering the shorter period between elections is quite remarkable.
And there, the similarities ended.....
This article is particularly damning, and shows that Hillary's downward polling trend on both lagging and leading indicators continues. Hard to see how she turns this ship around - certainly not by waiting five months to apologize and then assuming that has ruled a line under the matter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/14/hillary-clintons-e-mail-issues-have-grown-into-a-massive-political-problem/
I'm guessing but there can only be about 12 Labour MPs who have any real desire to have Corbyn as leader (and Abbott is one of them!) - the real party he wants to lead is the polyglot mash of protesters that he is happy to harang from in front of banners of Lenin.
1. That's rather a problem with God than with the Pope really. I don't like anyone telling me what to do either. Nor did my parents. I especially don't like priests telling me what to do. I think that has much to do with the Italian Catholicism I grew up with. But what Catholicism has given me is a sense of the sacred, that all of us - no matter who or what we are - are equally sacred and touched by divinity and worth beyond any value for that alone and a belief we are moral agents, that we have a choice between good and evil, that what is important is not to be perfect but to try our best and if we don't succeed (as we will most of the time) we get up and try again, that it is the trying that matters not the achievement, that forgiveness and love and charity matter, that having a moral compass, a conscience, that still small voice of calm is what matters most of all and that we will be judged not on our status, our money, our house but on how we did unto others.
2. Redemption comes through Christ. Venerating Mary does not detract from that. We pray to Mary to intercede with Christ not to replace him.
I think even the English in their hearts sort of understand this. After Diana died all those tributes in the park struck me as being exactly like the sort of shrines to Mary you see at the roadside in Southern Italy. To me it felt at times as if England had sort of stumbled upon its inner Catholicism, in a curious way.
3. Can't really say any more.
That patron saint of bankers must have been in agony these last few years.......!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ODfUOnw2x0g
No, sorry if it came across as touchy. It may be a discussion worth having.
Do you mean that teaching young people to hate a dictator is the right thing to do? I'd say that it's better to teach people to hate actions rather than the people who do them.
In fact it goes further back than that; don't teach hate at all, teach principles. If people are taught good principles they will make good decisions about what actions to approve & what to disapprove.
He lived in a squat and paid no tax at all let alone poll tax.
I asked him about this - him and his anarchist mates just went because they knew it would kick off and be "fun"
He was a seriously scary and mad as **** bloke.
(Just to avoid confusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teasmade )
1) Acknowledgement that Christ is divine and your saviour
2) Acknowledgement that you are a sinner
3) Acknowledgement that you have sinned
4) Sincere repentance of your sins
5) Actions consistent with the above (e.g. sincere attempts to make amends for past sins, sincere attempts to sin no more, avoidance of temptation, acknowledgement of the will of God, adoption of a lifestyle consistent with Godly precepts, etc)
It doesn't go "oh I have led a good life and by that alone I will be saved", or "oh I believe in God and by that alone I will be saved". It's more difficult than that.
(For other religions, please see the relevant writings)